Labour didn't do enough thinking, ex-top official says
The Labour Party had not done "enough thinking" about some of its plans before taking office, the former top civil servant has said.Simon Case told the BBC Sir Keir Starmer's top team "weren't good enough at communicating what [they] wanted to be done" in the early days of the Labour government.But Case said he did not think it was "right to describe it as a chaos".Case, who served four prime ministers, was the most senior official in government from September 2020 to December 2024, when he stepped down on health grounds.
The cabinet secretary role involves advising the prime minister, leading implementation of the government's policies and managing other high-level civil servants.Case was in the role for the six months after Labour won the general election last year and was involved in the transition between governments.Those early months were marked by riots following the stabbings of young girls at a dance class in Southport, a row over ministers accepting freebies, and Sue Gray leaving her role as Sir Keir's chief of staff.In his first interview about the early days of the Labour government, Case was asked whether ministers had done enough thinking about what they were going to do in office.Case told the BBC: "There were some elements where not enough thinking had been done."There were areas where, sitting in the centre of government, early in a new regime, the prime minister and his team, including me as his sort of core team, knew what we wanted to do, but we weren't communicating that effectively across all of government."He continued: "Definitely I would say, early on, we weren't good enough at communicating what wanted to be done and what that needed to be to everybody."But he added: "I absolutely don't think it is right to describe it as a chaos."
'Difficult' start
Case said the scandal over gifts and hospitality, which unfolded in government in the summer of 2024, was a result of "naivety" on the part of Sir Keir and his team.He said it was a "very difficult" period for the prime minister because it meant his "loved ones [being] pulled into politics".Speaking about his relationship with Sue Gray for the first time, Case said that it was a "very unusual" decision by Sir Keir to appoint her as his chief of staff.Before taking up the role, Gray had spent decades as a civil servant and became a household name as the official appointed to investigate lockdown parties in Downing Street during Boris Johnson's premiership.Case said her move into party politics from the civil service "was a source of enormous controversy within the civil service".He said because Gray had arrived in Sir Keir's operation less than a year before the general election, it meant the team "wasn't sort of fully bedded in and tested" prior to entering government.Gray was replaced by Morgan McSweeney, who was previously chief adviser to the prime minister and masterminded Labour's general election campaign.Case said the prime minister's decision to replace Gray with McSweeney "was a very good appointment" because "I could see right from the first day of having conversations with him how sharp a political operator he was".
In a separate interview with the BBC, cabinet minister Pat McFadden also suggested for the first time the prime minister had sacked Sue Gray as his chief of staff.When her departure was announced by Downing Street in October 2024, it included a statement from Gray saying that she had "chosen to stand aside".McFadden said: "I think it's a great shame it didn't work out, but after a few months the prime minister decided it wasn't working out and made the change."He added: "One thing I think that people have learnt about Keir Starmer is if he thinks something isn't working out or is not right, he will make the necessary change."The interviews with Case and McFadden feature in Starmer's Stormy Year, a BBC Radio 4 documentary available on BBC Sounds and on Radio 4 on Monday at 11am.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
14 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Welfare reforms: What concessions has the Government made?
Here, the PA news agency takes a look at what the changes are and how Labour MPs and disability groups have reacted. – What had the Government originally planned? In March, reforms to the welfare system – aimed at encouraging more people off sickness benefits and into work – were announced. The Government said the changes, including restricting access to the main disability benefit known as Pip (personal independence payment) and the sickness-related element of universal credit (UC), were expected to make welfare savings of £4.8 billion by 2029-30. With around 1,000 new Pip awards every day – 'the equivalent of adding a city the size of Leicester every single year', the Government argued the current situation was unsustainable. An impact assessment published alongside the Bill included estimates that changes to Pip entitlement rules would see about 800,000 people lose out, with an average loss of £4,500 per year. Changes to UC were expected to see an estimated 2.25 million current recipients of the health element impacted, with an average loss of £500 per year. Overall, as a result of the changes, it was estimated some 250,000 more people, including 50,000 children, across Great Britain were likely to fall into relative poverty after housing costs by the end of the decade. – What concessions have been made? In a late-night letter to MPs, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall conceded two changes she said would 'strengthen the Bill'. In recognition of the 'uncertainty and anxiety' caused by the proposed changes, she said all current Pip recipients would keep their benefits, saying only new claims from November 2026 will come under the tightened eligibility requirements. An impact assessment had stated that 370,000 current recipients were set to lose Pip entitlement across England and Wales. Ms Kendall also vowed all those currently receiving the UC health element, as well as new claimants meeting the severe conditions criteria, will have their incomes 'fully protected in real terms'. The Work and Pensions Secretary has also promised a review of the Pip assessment, led by social security and disability minister Sir Stephen Timms, which will have input from disabled people 'to ensure the benefit is fair and fit for the future'. – What are disability groups saying? Mikey Erhardt, from Disability Rights UK, accused the Government of 'playing politics with our lives', insisting the Bill must still be pulled. He said the changes will mean 'a benefits system where future generations of disabled people receive less support than disabled people today' and added that, in making the original announcement of cuts, the Government had 'prioritised balancing its books over improving the lives of disabled citizens'. Mr Erhardt added: 'Despite seemingly rowing back on some of the worst aspects of its plans, the Government is still attempting to slash billions of pounds from a system that doesn't provide enough support as it stands.' The MS Society said the Government was simply 'kicking the can down the road and delaying an inevitable disaster', and urged MPs 'not to be swayed by these last-ditch attempts to force through a harmful Bill with supposed concessions'. Food bank network Trussell welcomed the 'significant' concessions but said the proposals 'still present a bleak future for future claimants and still risk placing the Government's commitments to end the need for emergency food and tackle poverty in serious jeopardy'. – What are Labour MPs saying? Dame Meg Hillier, one of the leading rebel voices, described the concessions as 'a good deal' involving 'massive changes' to protect vulnerable people and involve disabled people in the design of future reforms. She said: 'It's encouraging that we have reached what I believe is a workable compromise that will protect disabled people and support people back into work while ensuring the welfare system can be meaningfully reformed.' Health minister Stephen Kinnock said he is confident the welfare reforms – being brought under the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill – will pass a vote in the Commons on Tuesday in the wake of the concessions. But some Labour MPs are still not satisfied, with Nadia Whittome saying the concessions are 'nowhere near good enough', vowing to still vote against the Bill unless 'serious' proposals are made to 'protect the dignity of disabled people'. Speaking to the Today programme on BBC Radio 4, she said MPs she had spoken to 'are sticking to their position because we understand that we are answerable to our constituents'. Ms Whittome added: 'If the Government doesn't pull the Bill, doesn't consult properly with disabled people and come back to MPs with a serious proposal that protects the dignity of disabled people, I will vote against and I will be far from the only one.'
Leader Live
15 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Government climbdown on welfare Bill marks third U-turn this month
Here, the PA news agency looks at three major policy changes this month. – Welfare reforms The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill was put in motion to change who could qualify for certain disability and sickness benefits. The package restricted eligibility for Pip, the main disability payment in England, and cut the health-related element of Universal Credit, in a bid to save £5 billion a year by 2030. But a backbench rebellion of more than 120 Labour MPs forced Sir Keir into a U-turn. In an attempt to appease those MPs, planned cuts will now only affect future applications for benefits, rather than existing claimants. – Winter fuel payment The Government scrapped winter fuel payments for pensioners who do not receive pension credits or other means-tested benefits just weeks after it came to power in July. It was described as a 'necessary and responsible' move by Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who argued it would help fill the £22 billion fiscal black hole. The Government said that changing the threshold for the payment would save £1.5 billion each year. But at the start of this month, the Prime Minister announced that the Government would reinstate winter fuel payments for millions of pensioners. The payment, worth up to £300, will be restored to the vast majority of pensioners who previously received it because anyone with an income of under £35,000 a year will now get the payment automatically. The Government said the change will cost £1.25 billion. – Grooming gangs Sir Keir has also U-turned on holding a national inquiry into grooming gangs. In January, the Prime Minister accused those calling for an inquiry of 'jumping on a far-right bandwagon' after tech entrepreneur Elon Musk criticised the UK for its lack of action on the issue. But following the recommendations of a report by Baroness Louise Casey into the scale of group-based child sexual abuse, Sir Keir announced in June that there would be a full national statutory inquiry. The Prime Minister had initially only promised five local inquiries in the most prevalent areas for grooming gangs. Asked about the change, Sir Keir said: 'I've never said we should not look again at any issue.'
The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
Starmer's welfare U-turn is short term gain for long term pain
Sir Keir Starmer was staring down the barrel of a long weekend on the phone to Labour rebels, pleading with them to come around before Tueday's crunch vote. The prime minister was hoping to stave off a rebellion from backbench MPs over his plans to make life significantly more difficult for some of their most hard up constituents. So it will have been a relief for the PM when lead rebel Dame Meg Hillier accepted his £1.5bn U-turn as a 'positive outcome', all but guaranteeing his welfare bill will survive Tuesday's vote. Despite the late concession, the prime minister's U-turn has not solved his problems, but simply stored them up for another day. While he will now avoid the embarrassing sight of a prime minister losing a key vote just a year after winning a 174-seat majority, the fallout from the welfare row will quietly chip away at his authority. First, it has emboldened Labour backbenchers. Especially among new intake MPs, there was a reluctance to speak out against the Labour leader for fear of being blacklisted from government jobs in the future, or even having the whip withdrawn. The impact of the PM's benefit cuts would have had such a devastating impact on disabled people that many felt they simply could not hold their tongues. They have now learned that a public rebellion can go a long way in winning the prime minister's attention after months of griping that he is not engaged enough with his MPs and their concerns. Secondly, it makes the prime minister look weak. The U-turn followed the same pattern as previous climbdowns over winter fuel payments and Labour's £28bn green investment plan. On winter fuel he spent months telling voters he was right to have stripped the payments from millions of pensioners, that he was taking 'tough decisions' and would not back down. Even when a U-turn looked inevitable, Sir Keir stuck to his guns and pressed ahead with the decision. Then, having squandered any political capital or goodwill that may have been gained from a concession to pensioners, he changed course, fudging the rationale and refusing to accept that he made the wrong decision in the first place. It will be the same with benefit cuts. As well as weakening the PM in the eyes of his own backbenchers, Sir Keir's third U-turn in a month weakens him in the eyes of voters - and Nigel Farage is set to pounce. The Reform UK leader has already sought to point the prime minister as devoid of ideas and convictions, presenting his insurgent right-wing party as a strong alternative government in waiting. So much of what Sir Keir, driven by chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, already does is aimed squarely at countering the rising threat of Reform. Getting hundreds of thousands of people off welfare and back into work, slashing the benefit bill, was another of those policies. But, after walking back from large parts of the policy, Sir Keir will leave Reform-minded voters yet again asking why they would back a Farage-lite Labour Party when they can instead vote for the real thing. Thirdly, the prime minister's chaotic approach to his latest U-turn means Labour - once a party which railed furiously against 'unfunded spending commitments' - has a £1.5bn black hole in its spending plans. It will need to be filled somehow, and the only options are spending cuts elsewhere or yet more tax hikes. Care minister Stephen Kinnock was the first minister out defending the policy change, while refusing to say how it would be paid for. Labour will now face months and months of questions and speculations about exactly which taxes will rise to pay for the U-turn, derailing much of the rest of the party's agenda. And lastly, the U-turn has solved a short-term problem but created a potentially larger long-term one. Campaigners have warned that the changes create a two-tier system for personal independence payment (Pip) claimants, with those starting claims in future treated differently to those on Pip currently. Sir Keir frequently criticised the Conservatives for what he called 'sticking plaster politics'. But in tackling his biggest rebellion yet, the prime minister has merely placed a sticking plaster over a major crack, and it is only a matter of time before it comes undone.
